A few minutes ago I was extracting information about mass copying with
pax(1) cpio(1L) on 6.2-PRERELEASE. I got information from pax(1)
man page, but i found cpio(1L) man page to be rather lacking. (Yeah,
I saw the pointer to info.)
Is it possible to have a genuine cpio(1L) 2.6 man page
JoaoBR wrote:
I am not convinced that this kind of test is of any value for comparing
systems at all because there are too much factors involved - unless the
competitors are installed on identical hardware. On the other side I think it
is usefull to compare tweaked settings on a particular
John Smith wrote:
Support for FreeBSD 4.11 is going to end sometime in late January.
Originally, FreeBSD 6.2 was supposed to be released back in October. This
would have given everyone about 3 months to stress test everything and
migrate all their boxes from 4.11 direct to 6.2.
You've had
Pieter de Goeje wrote:
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 11:38, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
In fact if you note that the PIII HW *can* actually do 700MB/s, it
suggests that your HW is capable of considerably more than 900MB/s -
given that opteron's have excellent cpu to memory bandwidth, and the
speed of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Is it supposed to go on into infiniti?
102115 (0xff015f88a260) sched_switch() at sched_switch+0x11f
100979 (0xff0147d79000) sched_switch() at sched_switch+0x11f
100757 (0xff002f189260) sched_switch() at sched_switch+0x11f
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 11:49:43PM +0100, V??clav Haisman wrote:
Hi,
I wrote about how FreeBSD 6.1 RC1, with latest RELENG_6 kernel, prints loads
of calcru: runtime went backwards... and calcru: negative runtime...
messages when the FreeBSD runs as virtual server under Microsoft Virtual
The point of MFC'ing cpio(1) changes is that it has fixed some old bugs
that can potentially damage user data.
Personally I'd rather replace it with the BSD pax(1) found in the base
system, if we had a proper GNU cpio(1) test suite to make sure that we
did not break something. It might be
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 07:38, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
I was however trying to point out that as your machine is different from
mine (opteron and ddr*400* as opposed to PIII and pc133), the fact that
it is faster is not telling us anything about whether releng_6
performance on cached file
On 12/20/06, Abdullah Al-Marrie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello guys,
I have problem with my new laptop Acer Aspire 5102 WLMi which has AMD
Turion™ 64 X2 dual-core TL-50 1.6 GHz with 1.5 GB of ram.
I'm running i386 6.2-RC1 upgraded to 6.2-PRELEASE via RELENG6 tag
since I don't have more than 4
Community support will continue on the freebsd-eol mailing list, fwiw.
However, note that we have dropped the requirement for ports maintainers
to make their ports work on 4.X, although many continue to do so.
It is simply too much for the ports team to support 3 major branches and
one
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 12:19, JoaoBR wrote:
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 10:42, JoaoBR wrote:
seems to be something wrong with the sf driver
I have starfire 64bit cards (adaptec 1 and two port) on amd64 releng_6
the card is probed, recognize correctly the connection but no traffic
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Exactly, that's why I did the comparison - I think you missed the part
where I mentioned the 2 systems were *identical* with respect to cpus,
memory, mobo - in fact even the power supplies are identical too!
So I assume your benchmark measured the performance of the
Abdullah Al-Marrie wrote:
[snip]...
1. The FreeBSD can't detect the builtin wlan chip which is Broadcom
BCM 4318 Rev 2.
[snip]...
Have you tried using ndisgen(8) and the Windows bcmwl5.[sys,inf] files
to create the module bcmwl5_sys.ko? I have a Gateway with the Broadcom
4318, and that
It is really a bug. But in my case it seems to be the hardware problem after
serval days fight with this crash.
The old server even crashes before booting to the login prompt. :( I have to
changes to another server now.
2006/12/20, Martin Blapp [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
Maybe you are
Hi all,
I'm using IPFW as my firewall.
What's the easiest way to add an IP such as 80.192.49.213 to block it?
Also how do I block out IPs after a certain number of invalid login
attempts to prevent brute forcing?
--
Regards,
Suhail.
___
In response to Mark Kirkwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
JoaoBR wrote:
I am not convinced that this kind of test is of any value for comparing
systems at all because there are too much factors involved - unless the
competitors are installed on identical hardware. On the other side I think
it
In response to Suhail Choudhury [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi all,
I'm using IPFW as my firewall.
What's the easiest way to add an IP such as 80.192.49.213 to block it?
ipfw add deny all from 80.192.49.213 to me
Although you need to take into consideration your existing IPFW rules,
as this will
Colin Percival wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Support for FreeBSD 4.11 is going to end sometime in late January.
Originally, FreeBSD 6.2 was supposed to be released back in October. This
would have given everyone about 3 months to stress test everything and
migrate all their boxes from 4.11 direct
In response to Heinrich Rebehn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Colin Percival wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Support for FreeBSD 4.11 is going to end sometime in late January.
Originally, FreeBSD 6.2 was supposed to be released back in October. This
would have given everyone about 3 months to stress test
A few more tests with a slightly improved version of the program
(attached): We (i.e FreeBSD) do noticeably better with bigger block sizes.
Cheers
Mark
Gentoo - 2.6.18-gentoo-r3:
---
$ ./readtest /data0/dump/file 8192 0
random reads: 10 of: 8192 bytes elapsed: 1.2698s
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Pieter de Goeje wrote:
It would be more interesting to see how random access to a (cached)
file performs in Linux vs FreeBSD, which seems a more logical pattern
for a database.
Agreed, and good point, I'll knock up a simple program to do random
and/or sequential
Suhail Choudhury [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's the easiest way to add an IP such as 80.192.49.213 to block it?
Easy:
# ipfw add deny ip from 80.192.49.213 to me
Depending on your existing rules, you might have to specify
a rule number, so the new rule is inserted at an appropriate
position.
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 22:20, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Pieter de Goeje wrote:
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 11:38, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
In fact if you note that the PIII HW *can* actually do 700MB/s, it
suggests that your HW is capable of considerably more than 900MB/s -
given that
On Dec 21, 2006, at 1:35 AM, Colin Percival wrote:
Now it is near the end of
December, and FreeBSD 6.2 RC2 has yet to be seen anywhere.
Chances are that
FreeBSD 6.2 Release will come out earliest mid-January. This does
not give
much time for people to migrate to the newest FreeBSD
John Smith wrote:
Support for FreeBSD 4.11 is going to end sometime in late January.
Originally, FreeBSD 6.2 was supposed to be released back in
October. This would have given everyone about 3 months to stress
test everything and migrate all their boxes from 4.11 direct to
6.2. Now it is
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
This kind of information (ie. options ASR_COMPAT) would be good to add to the
pkg_message for ports like this ... same thing trip'd me up the other day, and
someone let me know about it ...
and here's a patch... I guess I should send-pr it too...
Pieter de Goeje wrote:
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Pieter de Goeje wrote:
Copying /dev/zero to /dev/null yields more than 5GB/sec on a simple 2Ghz
Athlon64. It imagine there are quite a few extra things done when copying
On second thought, this is wrong because /dev/zero isn't a real
Hello, folks. I am not sure where to go with this, but i have an error
trying to execute ARECA RAID command line tool with PAE kernel with
GENERIC kernel everything is allright:
Fatal error 'Cannot allocate red zone for initial thread' at line ? in file
On 12/20/06, Abdullah Al-Marrie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello guys,
I have problem with my laptop Acer Aspire 5102 WLMi which has AMD
Turion™ 64 X2 dual-core TL-50 1.6 GHz with 1.5 GB of ram.
I'm running i386 6.2-RC1 upgraded to 6.2-PRELEASE via RELENG6 tag
since I don't have more than 4 GB
just noticed, after upgrading to 6.2RC1, that
luigi# burncd -f /dev/acd0 -v blank
blanking CD, please wait..
stays there forever. Eventually i gave up and ctrl-C and
the application terminates, and i was able to write to
the disk a valid image, which probably means that the
disk
Hi Nikolay,
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 07:27:06PM +0200, Nikolay Pavlov wrote:
Hello, folks. I am not sure where to go with this, but i have an error
trying to execute ARECA RAID command line tool with PAE kernel with
GENERIC kernel everything is allright:
Fatal error 'Cannot allocate red
On Thursday, 21 December 2006 at 19:45:33 +0200, Nikolay Pavlov wrote:
On Thursday, 21 December 2006 at 18:33:26 +0100, Rink Springer wrote:
Hi Nikolay,
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 07:27:06PM +0200, Nikolay Pavlov wrote:
Hello, folks. I am not sure where to go with this, but i have an error
On Thursday, 21 December 2006 at 18:33:26 +0100, Rink Springer wrote:
Hi Nikolay,
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 07:27:06PM +0200, Nikolay Pavlov wrote:
Hello, folks. I am not sure where to go with this, but i have an error
trying to execute ARECA RAID command line tool with PAE kernel with
Pieter de Goeje wrote:
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 11:38, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
In fact if you note that the PIII HW *can* actually do 700MB/s, it
suggests that your HW is capable of considerably more than 900MB/s -
given that opteron's have excellent cpu to memory bandwidth, and the
speed of
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 12:51:43PM -0500, Michael Proto wrote:
I made the change some time ago after combing newsgroups for this issue,
so my memory is a little hazy, but I seem to remember something about
the FLL/PLL switch being right at about 1024s. Check the Tuning section
here:
In response to Michael R. Wayne [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Private reply. Not interested in trolling or becoming a troll...
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 09:58:11AM -0500, Bill Moran wrote:
Are the people making this argument unaware that 6.1 and 5.5 have been
at release status for quite some time,
I have an Areca card and the utility works 100% for me on 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 6.1
and 6.2-BETA2 so I'm pretty sure it's a PAE issue.
-Clay
- Original Message -
From: Rink Springer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Nikolay Pavlov [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-stable@freebsd.org;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
On Thu, 2006-Dec-21 23:22:38 +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Pieter de Goeje wrote:
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 11:38, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
In fact if you note that the PIII HW *can* actually do 700MB/s, it
suggests that your HW is capable of considerably more than 900MB/s -
given that opteron's
Hi,
I have just noticed that ipfw list shows one rule twice. It could be that I
have run a script that adds it twice:
shell::root:~ ipfw list
00100 allow ip from any to any via lo0
00200 deny ip from any to 127.0.0.0/8
00300 deny ip from 127.0.0.0/8 to any
01999 deny ip from table(1) to any
01999
On Thursday, 21. December 2006 17:33, Oliver Fromme wrote:
Suhail Choudhury [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's the easiest way to add an IP such as 80.192.49.213 to block it?
Easiest way to block any activity is to use /etc/hosts.allow file.
Port: denyhosts-2.5
Path:
Kevin Downey wrote, On 21.12.2006 20:44:
On 12/21/06, *Václav Haisman* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I have just noticed that ipfw list shows one rule twice. It could be
that I
have run a script that adds it twice:
shell::root:~ ipfw
On 12/21/06, Václav Haisman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I have just noticed that ipfw list shows one rule twice. It could be that
I
have run a script that adds it twice:
shell::root:~ ipfw list
00100 allow ip from any to any via lo0
00200 deny ip from any to 127.0.0.0/8
00300 deny ip from
Oliver Fromme wrote:
[ snip ]
In general that's not a good idea. If you do it wrong, it
makes DoS attacks against your machine easier (i.e. a clever
attacker might be able to lock yourself out of your own
machine). And getting it right is not easy.
The best way to prevent brute-forcing is to
Scott Ullrich wrote, On 21.12.2006 21:05:
On 12/21/06, Václav Haisman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Huh, really? How is it useful? Please, explain.
One example feature is to be able to delete many rules at once. If
you know that a specific rule number holds rules (example: time based
rules)
Hi,
Re-edit your script and on the first line at the following:
ipfw -f fl
This line flushes the firewall script that is currently loaded
before loading your script.
Can you keep me posted.
Regards and a Merry Christmas,
--
Rodrigo Galiano Celestino
Internet System Consultant
On 12/21/06, Václav Haisman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, I did not realise this use. Hmm...still, I thought that this is what
tables are for :)
Yep, thats another usage for tables. But tables have not been around
for very long either. Considering that I have used IPFW since FreeBSD
version 2
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 08:53:07PM +0100, Václav Haisman wrote:
Huh, really? How is it useful? Please, explain.
I use the functionality you're questioning. Each of my rule numbers
(well, not all of them, but most of them) are for specfic things;
such as rule 3000 representing deny SSH attempts
On 12/21/06, Václav Haisman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Huh, really? How is it useful? Please, explain.
One example feature is to be able to delete many rules at once. If
you know that a specific rule number holds rules (example: time based
rules) then the script has less work to do. Now
On Wed, 2006-Dec-20 15:04:31 -0800, Scot Hetzel wrote:
Had the same problem where powerd would hang my HP Pavilion dv8000
system. I worked arround the problem by using the following in
rc.conf:
powerd_enable=YES
powerd_flags=-a maximum -b maximum
Of course this makes powered do nothing when on
Has anyone tried these tests with 4.x? Well, i did, and i was surprised
how good the performance is, it gave me the highest number of all tests,
even compared to much faster HW. Although this is all different
hardware, it seems like the performance drops the higher the version of
FreeBSD is,
Oliver Fromme wrote:
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Exactly, that's why I did the comparison - I think you missed the part
where I mentioned the 2 systems were *identical* with respect to cpus,
memory, mobo - in fact even the power supplies are identical too!
So I assume your benchmark measured
Bill Moran wrote:
In response to Mark Kirkwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
JoaoBR wrote:
I am not convinced that this kind of test is of any value for comparing
systems at all because there are too much factors involved - unless the
competitors are installed on identical hardware. On the other side I
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Bill Moran wrote:
In response to Heinrich Rebehn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Colin Percival wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Support for FreeBSD 4.11 is going to end sometime in late January.
Originally, FreeBSD 6.2 was supposed to be released back in October. This
would have given
On 21/12/06, Charles Sprickman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Bill Moran wrote:
In response to Heinrich Rebehn [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Colin Percival wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Support for FreeBSD 4.11 is going to end sometime in late January.
Originally, FreeBSD 6.2 was supposed
On 19/12/06, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 08:20:21PM +, Chris wrote:
On 18/12/06, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 12:39:13AM +, Chris wrote:
On 14/12/06, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at
Charles Sprickman made many good point IMO, but one aluded to in
Chris's follow up concerns me:
there is also uneeded cost involved in piurchasing hardware capable of
running 6.x
Performance on old boxes stability interest me, eg the 486s
in scanners ( http://berklix.com/scanjet/
On Thursday 21 December 2006 12:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a ral rt2561 I guess, which currently isn't support by the
releng_6 branch.
Is it possible to backport the driver from HEAD?
There was a cal for testers a couple of days ago. Two FreeBSD comitters are
looking at this, but
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Scott Ullrich wrote:
On 12/21/06, Václav Haisman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, I did not realise this use. Hmm...still, I thought that this is what
tables are for :)
Yep, thats another usage for tables. But tables have not been around
for very long either.
Raphael H. Becker wrote:
Hi *,
I recently triggered an error when setting up a jail-host: I configured
the jail(s) like evry jail I set up in the past:
Yes, this is a bug in rc.d/jail and was introduced in this change:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
-5.x was never really for production use, in the same way 3.x never
was.
Why do people continue to say this? Many sites have used, are still
using, and plan to continue to use, 5.x in production. ftp5/cvsup3
ran 5.x until a few months ago, and I have a netnews
Christopher Hilton wrote:
If it's at all possible switch to using public keys for authentication
with ssh and disallow password authentication. This completely stops
the brute forcing attacks from filling up your periodic security mail.
Are you sure about that? I only allow
В сообщении от Пятница 22 декабря 2006 00:27 Peter Jeremy написал(a):
On Wed, 2006-Dec-20 15:04:31 -0800, Scot Hetzel wrote:
Had the same problem where powerd would hang my HP Pavilion dv8000
system. I worked arround the problem by using the following in
rc.conf:
powerd_enable=YES
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 09:59:34PM -0500, Garrett Wollman wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
-5.x was never really for production use, in the same way 3.x never
was.
Why do people continue to say this? Many sites have used, are still
using, and plan to continue to use, 5.x in production.
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 09:27:17AM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
just noticed, after upgrading to 6.2RC1, that
luigi# burncd -f /dev/acd0 -v blank
blanking CD, please wait..
stays there forever. Eventually i gave up and ctrl-C and
the application terminates, and i was able to
64 matches
Mail list logo
